Fred Miranda wrote:
I just received a brand new CV 10/5.6 E-mount to compare to my CV 12/5.6 (which I have a great copy). It's like night and day for the extreme corners. I can't believe Voigtlander discontinued this lens!
Here are they at f/7.1:
PS: I don't remember this smear towards the extreme corners when I tested the CV 10/5.6 two years ago but improves greatly at ~ f/11.
Thanks Fred for posting this comparison.
The CV 12 corners look really good, while the CV 10 corners are not really convincing. The XP 10 is definitely better.
What's the best solution to mount filters on the CV 12?
Since my first sample of the XP 10mm had some problems with infinity focus on the MC-11 I tried a second sample.
With this sample the hard stop of the manual focus is exactly at infinity and not at 4-5m. Therefore the behavior of my first sample was based on the lens and not on the MC-11 adapter.
The performance of both samples at f/11 is nearly identical. Wide-open focused to the hard stop the second sample is sharper due to the correct infinity point. With hard stop infinity focus the corners on the sample #1 are slightly sharper. But this is only due to the field curvature characteristic of the lens and can be avoided by focusing on the corners instead of centre.
For normal landscape photography my first sample of the XP 10mm could even have a small advantage regarding usability. The hard stop is exactly at the hyperfocal distance of the lens for stopped down shooting. This means for hyperfocal shooting at f/11 you can set the lens to the hard stop and forget about manual focus. With my second sample you always have to turn the focus ring slightly back from the infinity hard stop for hyperfocal shooting (or best corner sharpness).
But on the other hand, the second sample is better for astro / milky-way shots wide open.
I have returned the first sample and will keep the second one.
You can find 100% crops comparing the two samples on my blog.
mudlake wrote:
Fred - Do you have crops of both shot at f11?
Here is a comparison @ f/11, infinity distance showing the extreme edge of the frame between both lenses: CV 10 and CV 12.
For the corners, the CV 10 improves from f/8 to f/11 but the CV 12 shows signs of diffraction. (It's better at f/7.1 or f/8 everywhere in the frame)
Both are very sharp at center but the CV 10 is still a bit soft towards the very corners.
Keep in mind that the results above may not reflect how these lenses really compare. My CV 12/5.6 copy is outstanding and took me a few copies to find it. This 10/5.6's performance does not seem to be the norm as my review copy from 2 years ago did much better towards the corners.
I am getting a second CV 10/5.6 E-mount and will post the results.
I'm really going to have to track down that CV12mm ! Laowa also make a 12/2.8 (EDIT : US$923) which I tested in the shop and it was very sharp even into the corners/borders. I'll have to find out how pricing compares since it's more often used as a fun lens so shouldn't be breaking the bank for a retiree.
The Samyang XP 10mm f/3.5 looks to be a real bargain though, it's only US$500 over here.
That said I bought the Laowa 10-18/4.5-5.6 just before a trip to Chiang Mai and Siem Reap. So much fun ! The lens is remarkable for the money (US$770 over here). Quite sharp where it's needed (not so much at the borders / corners but I don't look at them at 300% and after PP I may even have snipped them off anyway, to say nothing of the fact that most borders/corners shot at 10mm are not going to be of much interest anyway)
These are from Chedi Luan (Thailand) and Ta Prohm (Cambodia), from whence I returned last week, and are the first images I've processed. Mostly shot on an A7rii if I remember correctly (possibly A9 - there's no EXIF). What impressed me is that in many situations around these temples a photo encompassing the whole artifact wouldn't have been possible at all without an extreme UWA.
The originals are quite sharp, these however have have two logos added (twice imported into LR then exported again) and then been resized using Resize Sense and imported into FM, so obviously not as sharp as the processed jpgs straight out of from Luminar, for when I choose some for print. All were shot between f4.5 and f8.
Anyone have any experience (or comparison) to share between these 10mm lenses and the Sony 12-24G? I'm curious how the edges and corners compare. I'm quite happy with the performance at 12mm, but perhaps I'm missing something?
Gunzorro wrote:
Anyone have any experience (or comparison) to share between these 10mm lenses and the Sony 12-24G? I'm curious how the edges and corners compare. I'm quite happy with the performance at 12mm, but perhaps I'm missing something?
Wide open and stopped down corner and center sharpness of XP 10 and 12-24G are very similar. I prefer the colors of the XP and 10mm is much wider than 12mm.
I got my second copy today and it's well centered and not that far from the CV 12/5.6's performance. The CV 12/5.6 is still better though)
Here is how it performs at f/8 and f/11 towards the very corner of the frame:
Yeah, definitely looks like that new copy sits comfortably in-between the first copy and the CV12 with regards to corner sharpness. Not sure you'll do much better than this!
As for the 10 or 12, I'd love to see Voigtlander do something similar to what they've done with the 21 - make it bigger, a stop faster, and sharper into the corners. Maybe make it slightly bigger than the new Nokton and an f/4.5? I get the feeling they could really corner the market on the highest quality 10 or 12mm prime if they did this. The 10 is still a Mk I, too - might be due for an update?
jwhatts wrote:
Yeah, definitely looks like that new copy sits comfortably in-between the first copy and the CV12 with regards to corner sharpness. Not sure you'll do much better than this!
As for the 10 or 12, I'd love to see Voigtlander do something similar to what they've done with the 21 - make it bigger, a stop faster, and sharper into the corners. Maybe make it slightly bigger than the new Nokton and an f/4.5? I get the feeling they could really corner the market on the highest quality 10 or 12mm prime if they did this. The 10 is still a Mk I, too - might be due for an update?...Show more →
I'm not sure but Voigtlander discontinued the CV 12/5.6 III E-mount. It performs better than the CV 10 everywhere in the frame.
I would get one before stores are no longer selling it.
jwhatts wrote:
Yeah, definitely looks like that new copy sits comfortably in-between the first copy and the CV12 with regards to corner sharpness. Not sure you'll do much better than this!
As for the 10 or 12, I'd love to see Voigtlander do something similar to what they've done with the 21 - make it bigger, a stop faster, and sharper into the corners. Maybe make it slightly bigger than the new Nokton and an f/4.5? I get the feeling they could really corner the market on the highest quality 10 or 12mm prime if they did this. The 10 is still a Mk I, too - might be due for an update?...Show more →
Check out the Laowa 12/2.8. I found it very sharp into the corners/borders in shop testing.
Thanks for the review, actually came across your blog review when I was looking at new non-native FE lenses (was actually looking at the Tamron 35 1.4 SP).
Sometimes the Samyang can (already) be found well-discounted, used. It may be cheaper to obtain than the new arrivals.
So how does it compare, when size matters? And how does it compare, when size doesn't matter?
The Laowa 9mm has a colour tint in the corners, and quite intense vignetting (understandable for a compact mirrorless design). Is the colour tint Bastian spotted in the Samyang (earlier in this thread) as strong as the Laowa's? The Samyang's vignetting is a lot lower when stopped down, thanks to that bulky, DSLR-compatible optical design, whereas the diminutive Laowas give you a lot of vignette at any aperture.
I'm wondering whether I might have an occasional use for a prime wider than my current-widest 15mm (the Laowa f/2), for niche indoor photography tasks, and if so, which lens to go for. I might well choose the 11mm Laowa, when it comes out, depending on its performance. But the discounted price, and apparently high performance, of the Samyang are impressive, too. Just exactly how wide do I want to go? 9mm feels like more than I'll ever cope with or have a role for. 10 or 11 might already be very niche for me. If I picked the 9 I might end up cropping every shot I took with it, at least a little.
I'm impatiently looking forward to seeing what the quirks of the 11mm turn out to be - it might be as wide as I'd ever need, if I'm being sensible, so I'm hoping it'll be as cheap as it is small, and work well enough. But the Samyang, available somewhat inexpensively, already, right-now, is tempting!
All ultra-ultra-wide lenses have at least a little trouble with flare resistance. So when it is said that the Samyang flares, I don't know what context to put that into. Worse than the Laowas, or much the same?
Guess I'll have to wait and see as more reviews come out - sorry for the waffle...!
I guess I have some thinking to do! I suspect the Samyang is optically a little bit better. And with the Samyang the vignetting can be greatly reduced by stopping down, whereas it never goes away with the 11mm. I am still not sure whether the character of the colour casts (in the corners) is better in the Samyang vs the Laowa. And I hope Laowa come up with a more accurate distortion-correction profile than their current one.
The compactness is extraordinary, however.
It's welcome that the 11mm Laowa is cheaper than the 9mm, but an ex-display or used Samyang 10mm f/3.5 is still cheaper than both of them where I am...
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Does this Samy 10/3.5 have decent coma correction wide open?
And nice thread and images—helpful!
I've just spotted a review on a Polish forum. The author took one picture of a light-polluted sky at maximum aperture. And at the end of the thread/page he shared a download link to a ZIP file of all of his test images in full resolution.
It's a light-polluted sky, so there aren't millions of stars, but the ones you can see look pretty good in the corners. Not abso-perfectly sharp, but really not much wrong with them at all. Better than I expected.
